24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 July 2021 by Nicola Davies BA DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th August 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/D3640/W/20/3260594 24 Park Avenue, Camberley GU15 2NG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr D Berridge against the decision of Surrey Heath Borough Council. • The application Ref 19/2182/FFU, dated 19 December 2019, was refused by notice dated 29 June 2020. • The development proposed is demolition of existing dwelling and garage and erection of 4 detached dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) has been published since the planning application was determined by the Council. Both main parties have had the opportunity to comment on any relevant implications for the appeal. I have had regard to the revised Framework in reaching my decision.

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision | The appellant has put forward a revised site plan, reference 1456/P-206 | | --- | | produced to inform the appeal process. The plan shows changes to access and | | landscaping within the site being replaced with hardsurfacing. However, there | | is no evidence it has been subject to full consultation. If I determined the | | appeal on the basis of the additional plan it is possible that the interests of | | parties who might wish to comment would be prejudiced. For this reason, I | | have not had regard to that plan. |

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision | The appellant has put forward a revised site plan, reference 1456/P-206 | | --- | | produced to inform the appeal process. The plan shows changes to access and | | landscaping within the site being replaced with hardsurfacing. However, there | | is no evidence it has been subject to full consultation. If I determined the | | appeal on the basis of the additional plan it is possible that the interests of | | parties who might wish to comment would be prejudiced. For this reason, I | | have not had regard to that plan. | 4. New residential development that is likely to have a significant effect on the ecological integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) will be required to demonstrate that adequate measures are put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects. The appellant has provided a legal undertaking that would secure a financial contribution towards mitigation. The Council is satisfied with the submitted undertaking and on this basis has withdrawn reason for refusal 2 that related to the SPA. I have therefore proceeded with the appeal on the basis that refusal reason 2 is no longer before me as it has been withdrawn. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision 4. New residential development that is likely to have a significant effect on the ecological integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) will be required to demonstrate that adequate measures are put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects. The appellant has provided a legal undertaking that would secure a financial contribution towards mitigation. The Council is satisfied with the submitted undertaking and on this basis has withdrawn reason for refusal 2 that related to the SPA. I have therefore proceeded with the appeal on the basis that refusal reason 2 is no longer before me as it has been withdrawn. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D3640/W/20/3260594 Main Issues 5. The main issues are: - a. The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; b. The effect of the proposed development on trees; and c. The effect of the proposed development on highway safety. Reasons Character and appearance 6. The appeal site is located within the Hedged Estates Character Area of Camberley as identified within the Western Urban Character Area Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The SPDs seeks development to respond to local circumstances and to have regard to distinctive patterns of development. 7. The residential development along Park Avenue is characterised by large road frontage detached dwellings set back from the highway with long rear gardens. Although not uniform, there is a general continuity to the linear form of front and rear building lines. Indeed, the development within the wider area of Kingsley Avenue largely reflects this character. There is space around dwellings, the rear gardens do not host large structures, and there are trees and vegetation within gardens and along the highway verge, all of which create an openness.

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision This sense of spaciousness significantly contributes to the area’s pleasant character and appearance. Taken collectively, these give a distinctiveness to the character and appearance of the area and is typical of the wider Hedged Estates Character Area, as can be seen from the photographs within the appellant’s Townscape and Design Assessment that supports the appeal. 8. Two dwellings behind road frontage development, even if of good design, would be out of keeping with the pattern of development in the area. The creation of a cluster of dwellings would be harmful to the established and distinctive character of the area and would erode the existing verdant spaciousness provided by the existing rear garden. Although adopted policies and the SPD do not specifically rule out the subdivision and development of residential gardens or development on backland sites, dwellings behind frontage properties are not a feature of the area. 9. I acknowledge that the National Design Guide suggests that well—designed places do not need to copy their surroundings in every way. An extract from the Council’s Residential Design Guide SPD has been provided by the appellant.

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision This gives illustrative guidance as to what the Council would consider to be acceptable in-depth development and plot rhythm. However, a cluster of properties, even if of a small number, would form an alien feature at odds with the form and pattern of existing development as there is no backland development within the Hedged Estates Character Area. 10. Although the CGI submitted in support of the appeal shows that Unit 3 would be partially visible in views from Park Avenue, land levels, limited height of properties and landscaping would reduce the general visibility of Units 3 and 4 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision This gives illustrative guidance as to what the Council would consider to be acceptable in-depth development and plot rhythm. However, a cluster of properties, even if of a small number, would form an alien feature at odds with the form and pattern of existing development as there is no backland development within the Hedged Estates Character Area. 10. Although the CGI submitted in support of the appeal shows that Unit 3 would be partially visible in views from Park Avenue, land levels, limited height of properties and landscaping would reduce the general visibility of Units 3 and 4 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D3640/W/20/3260594 and related hardsurfacing in wider public views and in views from neighbouring properties. Even if these dwellings with their related hardsurfacing and plot divisions would be out of public view as a result of an established landscape scheme, this reason would not be compelling in principle as it would not overcome the harm that placing dwellings behind road frontage development would have to the distinctive character of the area. Therefore, the potential limited visibility of Units 3 and 4 in public and neighbouring views would not constitute exceptional justification for the development. 11. I acknowledge the current site is larger than existing residential curtilages in the surrounding area and that the appellant’s analysis demonstrates that the resulting plots sizes for each dwelling and garden depths would reflect the plot sizes and rear gardens generally within the Hedged Estates Character Area. The proposal would optimise the development potential of the site.

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, this does not obviate the need to consider those development plan policies that require development to respect and enhance the local character of the environment, irrespective of the size of the existing site and its large garden area when compared to that of others in the locality. 12. I have been directed to an example of development in the area that related to two new houses at the rear of 30-32 Kingsley Avenue. However, whilst I have had sight of a proposed site layout plan, I have not been provided with the full details of that case. Notwithstanding this, that appeal was, in any event, dismissed and can, therefore, offer little weight in support of this appeal even if some similarity could be drawn between that proposal and the one before me. 13. I have been provided photograph examples of cul-de-sac type development at The Pavillions End, Kingsclear Park and a nursing home at Park Road. Those examples are not directly comparable as they are located either outside this Hedges Estates Character Area or form part of another Hedged Estates Character Area where different considerations pertaining to the guidance principles of those areas will apply. These examples hold little weight in favour of the proposal.

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision 14. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policies CP2 and DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (CSDMP) 2012, Guiding Principles HE1, HE2 and HE3 of the Western Urban Character SPD 2012, principles 4.1, 6.2, 6.6, 6.7, 7.1, 7.4 and 9.3 within the Residential Design Guide SPD 2017 and the Hedged Estates Character Area. These policies and guidance require development, amongst other matters, to reflect the context of its surrounding character and to respect and enhance the quality of the local, natural and historic character of the environment. Trees 15. The existing trees, both within the site and within neighbouring gardens, along with trees upon the highway verge, all contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area. The trees are therefore an important feature of the locality and their protection from harm to ensure their longevity is also important and not to be undermined. The premature loss of any of the trees would have a negative and significant visual effect upon the character and appearance of the area.

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/D3640/W/20/3260594 16. The appellant's case is supported by ‘Arboricultural Implication Study and Tree Protection Strategy’ reports and an ‘arboricultural method statement’. The arboricultural method statement sets out that fencing would be erected to protect trees, demolition would take place by hand where it would affect root protection areas (RPA) or the crown of trees, all construction storage facilities, utilities, services and drainage would be outside of the RPA and the new driveway would be of a no dig construction. Units 1 and 3 would, in part, be within the RPA of some trees. It is explained that if roots are found within the RPA where these properties are to be constructed a pile and beam foundation design can be utilised. 17. It appears to me that demolition of the existing building could potentially take place without significant harm to the RPS of trees as demolition would take place by hand. The tree protection plan and services drawing provided within the arboricultural method statement illustrates the construction of storage facilities, utilities, services and soakaway drainage could potentially be provided at the site beyond RPAs. 18.

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision Notwithstanding the above, the proposal would create a new access and widen an existing access. This could impact trees along the highway verge. Whilst a no dig driveway construction is put forward, harm could arise to the RPA of a tree (Lime T47) from the weight of vehicles using the access, particularly that of delivery vehicles during the construction phase. 19. It is suggested that a cellular confinement system be used and a cross-section detail is provided in the arboricultural method statement. However, no specific details have been provided relating to load bearing capacity of this system to determine whether it would be able to protect the underlying soil from compaction. On the available evidence, it does not appear to me that the impact upon the Lime tree from vehicle loads has been adequately considered, therefore I cannot be certain that no harm would arise to the tree from vehicle damage. 20. The appellant's reports suggest that the foundation design will result in limited impact on the RPA of trees.

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision The Council’s Arboricultural Officer highlights that having regard to British Standard 5837:2012 development within RPA requires overriding justification and that it is required to be demonstrated that the trees can remain viable if the RPA is encroached upon. Given the size of the site, there appears scope to potentially erect dwellings beyond RPAs. Whilst a pile and beam foundation design could be utilised, this does not justify proposed dwellings that would encroach upon the RPA of existing trees. 21. There is difference in opinion between the appellant and the Council as to the degree of information required to be provided at planning application stage and the interpretation of the information that has been provided. Nonetheless, for the above reasons, I cannot be certain that the trees in the locality of the proposed development would not be harmed as a result of the proposed development and/or that their long-term protection would be sufficiently secured. 22. The proposed development, therefore, has a significant potential to negatively impact upon trees in the area and have a detrimental impact on their wellbeing in the long-term that could lead to pressure to remove the trees in the future.

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision This would bring the proposal into conflict with Policies CP2 and DM9 of the CSDMP, Principles HE1 and HE3 of the Western Urban Area Character SPD and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision This would bring the proposal into conflict with Policies CP2 and DM9 of the CSDMP, Principles HE1 and HE3 of the Western Urban Area Character SPD and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D3640/W/20/3260594 Principle 6.4 of the Residential Design Guide SPD that seek to protect trees worthy of retention. I do not consider that relying on planning conditions would ameliorate my concerns sufficiently to allow permission to be granted. Highway safety 23. The proposal to increase the number of dwellings at the site would intensify vehicular movements to and from the site. The ‘Motion’ statement of case that supports the appellant’s case indicates vehicle speeds along Park Avenue to be under the 30mph speed limit (28mph eastbound and 27mph westbound). Nonetheless, on leaving the site visibility is impeded by the highway verge trees. Manual for Streets allows for a small diminution in visibility below recommended levels unless there is local evidence that would indicate this not to be appropriate. I have been advised that no collisions have been recorded in the vicinity of site in past 5 year. 24. I saw that existing trees on the highway verge do not fully obstruct visibility. I acknowledge that the egress from driveways would be similar to that of other existing properties along Park Avenue.

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appellant’s supporting statement indicates that traffic flow is low past the site and the development would result in an increase of 15 vehicular trips during an average day. 25. This is a residential area, and it appears to me from the evidence provided that there is relatively low traffic movement in the area and traffic travelling along Park Avenue does not travel at the speed limit or above. The trees on the site frontage would obstruct visibility to some extent when leaving the site. However, the vehicles leaving the site would have reasonable visibility in both directions along Park Avenue despite the existence of the trees. I do not consider the highway verge trees would impede visibility to an extent that would significantly prejudice highway safety. 26. As a result, I conclude that the proposal would accord with Policies CP11 and DM11 of the CSDMP that require, amongst other matters, development to ensure safe access and egress. Other matters 27. The Council has raised concern in its statement to the introduction of two houses at the rear of the plot as it would fundamentally change the outlook of adjoining residents, though this matter is not specifically referred to in the Council's decision notice.

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision Whilst it is suggested that the development would be imposing and intrusive to neighbouring residents, given the separation between respective developments, I consider the proposal would not significantly compromise the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in regard of their outlook. 28. A series of other concerns about the proposal have been raised by third parties but in view of my conclusions on the first two main issues there is no need for me to address these in the current decision. Conclusion 29. Whilst I have found in favour of the appellant in terms of the effect upon highway safety, this does not overcome the identified harm in relation to the other main issues. It is appreciated that pre-application advice was sought in https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D3640/W/20/3260594 this case and a public consultation exercise was undertaken. However, having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.

24 Park Avenue, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2NG — Surrey Heath Borough Council — Nicola Davies INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6